Anti-illegal-guns group to run ad in Milwaukee

Mayors Against Illegal Guns, a group founded by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and which counts Mayor Tom Barrett as a member, is scheduled to air an ad Tuesday in several markets, including Milwaukee, that invokes the tragedy of Newtown, Conn., and asks politicians to stand up to the gun lobby. »Read Full Blog Post

While we strive for a lively and vigorous debate of the issues, we do not tolerate name calling, foul language or other inappropriate behavior. Please see our discussion guidelines and terms of use for more information.

While we do our best to moderate comments, we do not screen comments before they are posted. If you see a comment that violates our guidelines, please use the "Report Abuse" link to notify us of the issue.

Just a feel-good, pat themselves on their back campaign. Pimping out the latest shooting. There have been shootings since, but we don't hear about those because they aren't .................sensationalistic.

My rights should not be taken away because of crimes committed by someone with an illegal gun. Do they believe that stricter laws will prevent illegal guns from getting into the Country? How well has that worked for illegal drugs? Criminals will always have access to guns. All this does is make decent citizens more vulnerable to them.

this whole campaign is merely a lame and late response to the CT tragedy. Bad people with guns will kill regardless of any law. I don't want the ad run, for the same reason that Milwaukee didn't want to hear about the felonies and fine for illegal voting.

This is why we need more law-abiding citizens carrying guns. Guns are not the problem, lack of mental health funding is the root of this. People kill with cars everyday, why aren't you going after banning trucks, as they cause more damage? Makes about as much sense. This is nothing but feel-good politics with zero common sense. Look at Chicago and D.C. guns are illegal, and the crime rates are through the roof ... because the criminals know nobody can fight back. Bloomberg, I bet you were horrible in math classes ... 2 2 still equals 4 lil buddy. These antis have probably never been around guns, and have no clue what they're talking about anyway, all they know is there are bleeding hearts they can suck into their aura to gain votes.

There are more gun deaths in Chicago, where gun laws are very restrictive, than in New York City where the laws are pretty much the norm across the country. Timothy McVeigh used racing gasoline, fertilizer, and a U-haul truck to kill 168 people, so should we outlaw those things as well?

Outdoors wrote "There are more gun deaths in Chicago, where gun laws are very restrictive, than in New York City where the laws are pretty much the norm across the country."

Not true at all.

New York City's gun laws are very much like Chicago's. While, in theory, NYC issues carry permits, in reality, they almost NEVER, EVER do (unless you are a retired or current cop). You have a much better chance of winning $1 million in the lottery than getting a NYC carry permit.

If you are caught with an illegal gun in NYC (and, in public, almost every gun IS illegal), you face mandatory jail time, even if you are a local star athlete, like Plaxico Burress.

On February 3, 2008, Burress caught the game-winning pass in Super Bowl XLII. Because of that catch, the NY Giants won the Super Bowl. Less than 10 months later (while still playing for the Giants), Burress was caught carrying an unlicensed Glock pistol in Manhattan. He ended up serving almost two years in prison.

In any other part of the US, a local hero like that would have been given a pass. NY City has some very tough gun laws--unlike almost anywhere else in the US.

Here is a follow-up to my prior post about how tough NY City and State gun laws are.

"New York State law prohibits as much as storing a pistol or revolver at one’s home without a permit. Licensing is administered by cities and counties, which have broad discretion to decide whether Joe and Jane can have that .44 magnum. New York City vets applicants through an elaborate process that includes an extensive background check. Those who want to keep a handgun at a place of business or, God forbid, carry one on the street must also demonstrate a compelling need, in writing. Few such requests are granted. … Contrast that with California, where any resident with a clean record can buy a handgun without a permit."

hunterws wrote "Guns are not the problem, lack of mental health funding is the root of this."

Is there any evidence whatsoever that Adam Lanza was denied mental health care because of lack of funding? Connecticut is a very wealthy state (perhaps the wealthiest in the US), Newtown is an above-average area, and the Lanza's were, at worst, upper-middle-class (if not members of the top 1%).

Besides, under the law, Adam Lanza was perfectly sane (and allowed to bu guns) since he was never institutionalized or adjudicated insane.

hunterws also wrote " Look at Chicago and D.C. guns are illegal, and the crime rates are through the roof ... because the criminals know nobody can fight back."

Look at NYC where guns are also illegal (and where "criminals [also] know nobody can fight back"), and you'll see much lower crime rates.

These goof ball politicians don't get it. There is no such thing as an "illegal gun". Even fully automatic machine guns are legal if you pay the $200 tax and fill out the correct paperwork. It is the behavior of an individual that is illegal.

Mayor Barrett is signing onto this? He knows how slowly the police response time is. When he took on the tire iron wielding nut with his threat that he was going to call 9-11, he waited over 45 minutes for the police to show up. So now he has his security all the time. But he still feels we the people shouldn't be able to protect ourselves. Amazing the double standards the liberals feel. I guess we need to make more gun free zones so bad people know where it's safe to attack....

Had Mrs. Lanza not been able to purchase that type of gun, her son would not have had access to it, hence, he would not have killed 20 children. Maybe he goes in with two handguns in which case he still is able to take out several people, but not 20.

OIIIIIO wrote "Also he [Adam Lanza] killed to gain access to the weapons. That is already against the law. … He had to kill someone to get a weapon."

We don't know that this is true. For one thing, his mother was killed while she was sleeping, so he didn't have to kill her to get the guns (unless she stored all of them under her mattress). Perhaps he killed his mother just to get warmed up for his day in school.

Also, we don't know whether Adam Lanza owned any of those guns. Isn't it possible that Nancy Lanza gave one (or more) of those guns to Adam ("Happy birthday Adam!")? After all, private gun transfers (like a mother's gift to her adult son) are totally unrecorded with no background check.

OIIIIIIO also wrote "Further more, 2 to 3 days before his crimes, he was denied purchase of a long gun during the background check. The system worked."

No, it didn't!

The ONLY reason Adam Lanza was refused the gun sale was that he didn't want to wait 14 days to pick up the gun. In the eyes of the law, Adam Lanza was totally sane and able to pass a background check (provided he would wait 14 days to pick up the gun).

So, TransetRider, You've got 2 don't knows and one where he didn't purchase a rifle, legally, because of the process and restrictions in place and you want to take away my rights.

Base on 2, self admitted "don't knows" and the last one I clearly disagree with you on. He wouldn't wait the 14 days required. He wanted to do a mass killing, so he killed his mother, stole her property (clearly it was stated in the news that the "firearms" were owned by his mother, but I will admit I cannot rule out if any were owned by him). So you want me to surrender my firearms?

Point out just one thing, without strawman scenarios, that would prevent this tragedy, contained in any of the dozens of anti-gun rights bills currently proposed...I have yet to see one. All I hear is that will make it harder for someone in the future....really. Look what happened when the due process made it "harder" for the killer to get his preferred tool..

I still question what weapon(s) were used in these crimes. I think that with the school shooting being the bases for the new bills, the details (all be it while protecting the families involved) to have these facts made public. Many details could be released discreetly. No one wants to hear how these children died. That should remain sealed. Just some basic info.

OIIIIIO, you asked what law changes (other than straw purchaser stuff--which I hope you agree MUST be fixed) would have prevented or lessened Newtown.

Here are 5…

1. Running background checks on ALL firearm transfers (including gifts and private sales). I suspect one (or more) gun used in Newtown was actually owned by Adam Lanza--a gift from his mother. This wouldn't have stopped Newtown by itself because, under today's NRA-inspired laws, Adam Lanza would have been judged sane.

2. A more inclusive definition of insanity to be used when running background checks together with whatever is needed to make it work (perhaps requiring an in-person evaluation by a psychiatrist). Under today's laws, Adam Lanza was sane and able to buy all the guns he needed (subject only to a waiting period).

3. Banning large clips. The Tucson shooting stopped when Jared Loughner stopped to reload and survivors tackled him. If Lanza had paused to change clips (or switch guns), it might have given some child a chance to escape or an adult to tackle him. I hope you agree that saving the life of even one of these children would have made this change worthwhile.

4. Requiring that all guns be securely locked up (together with whatever is needed to insure that this is REALLY being done). If this were in effect, it would have prevented Adam Lanza from stealing the guns (if he indeed stole them).

5. Banning (or seriously restricting) guns like the macho-man (with its "Man Card" marketing campaign) Bushmaster AR-15. Some reports say he used this gun for all the school shootings except for his own suicide (which was by handgun). The ban should be based upon its fire-power (velocity and caliber) and conceal-ability, not on its appearance.

This isn't all the items that I think should be proposed; it is just those currently discussed that are applicable to Newtown.

DrewH, do you know how long does it takes to change a magazine in a handgun? A few seconds. Whether the shooter had an AR or a Glock, he was hell bent on killing as many as possible. Mrs. Lanza bought a black sporting rifle in compliance with her states' very tough anti-gun laws.

The VA Tech shooter only had handguns, and was able to kill many. It's not the gun.

So if he had gone in there with more of a classic hunting rifle and shot at children, he may have had fewer rounds, but with the kids huddled up each round could have killed 3-4 children.

Keep in mind that in AZ, Loughner was stopped not because he "stopped to reload" but _because_ he used crappy extended capacity mags which caused a jam giving the brave people time to tackle him. If he had been using 10 round magazines, it's quite likely that many more people would have been shot.

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation... and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

There is no evidence that Adam Lanza was not the legal owner or legal user of one or more of those guns. Yes, Nancy Lanza bought all of them, but she might have given one or more of them to her son. Doing so would trigger no background check and would (unlike, say, a motor vehicle gift) require no paperwork.

Nancy Lanza permitted Adam to use those guns. They both used them at shooting ranges, for example. If a non-personal item is left unlocked (or, like a car, locked but with the key laying around) within a house, it is sometimes understood that anybody in that house (especially family) may use it without stealing it. For example, Adam Lanza drove Nancy's car to Sandy Hook School, yet nobody has ever said he drove a "stolen car" that morning.

Adam did not kill Nancy to get a gun. He already had a gun BEFORE she was shot. (How could he possibly shoot her if he did not ALREADY have a gun?) And Nancy wasn't trying to stop him from taking the guns--she was shot while sleeping.

The NRA's position on this (that the children were all killed with ILLEGAL guns, because the guns became illegal the instant Nancy Lanza was shot) is absurd. If Nancy Lanza were not shot, would the NRA claim "the children were all killed with ILLEGAL guns because those guns became illegal the instant Adam Lanza shot the school principal"?

Even the NRA would have to agree the guns were legal if Nancy Lanza and the school principal (and a 3rd adult killed with the principal) were not shot first. Saying that this is a less serious event (done with "illegal" guns instead of "legal" ones) only because 3 ADDITIONAL people were killed is obscene.

The NRA likes to blame Newtown, Tucson, Webster NY (the volunteer firemen ambushed on Christmas Eve), and others on "illegal" guns. The problem is that all those "illegal" guns had been 100% legal--in some cases legal until minutes or even seconds before being used to kill somebody.

luvtheovals, everyone killed in the school (except Lanza himself) was shot by a Bushmaster AR-15 rifle, which Lanza was old enough to own, buy and possess. (According to an NRA website, Connecticut requires that handgun owners be 21, but has no minimum age for rifles.)

http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/state-laws/connecticut.aspx Obsessing about whether or not the guns were "legal" is silly and obscene--the kids are dead either way. Besides, I think everybody agrees all the guns Lanza carried were legal 30 minutes before he arrived at the school.

luvtheovals, the NRA (and you) seems to be saying the guns were illegal because Adam took them without permission and/or because Adam was 5 months too young to possess a handgun and/or because they were within a "gun-free school zone" and/or the fact that he used one to kill (his mother).

If any (or all) of those things is what made the guns illegal, then (I think) the NRA is saying the guns were totally legal before that. And all of those things happened less than 30 minutes before he shot the school principal.

I think there should be a group to propose that we outlaw Murder....oh wait that is illegal. maybe we should make it that felons cannot gbuy a gun...oh wait that is illegal. Maybe we should make it that anyone with a mental issue cannot buy a gun...oh wait... The point is..no mater how many laws you make, the bad guys will find a way to get a gun, no matter what you make illegal, there is someone that will break the law. laws are there to deter the good people, laws are broken everyday by those that don't care what law is on the books. Quit demonizing a piece of inanimate object and start demonizing theperson that commits the crime. If I punch someon, will we start outlawing hands...NO. So quit going after the guns.